Commentary for Bava Kamma 211:9

א"ל רמי בר חמא לרב נחמן מכדי דרב לא סבירא לך משכוני נפשך אדרב למה לך אמר ליה לפרושה לדרב דרב הכי מתרץ לה למתניתין

whereas if he admits [this] on his own accord, he has to pay the Principal together with a Fifth and bring a trespass offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Lev. V, 22-25. Sheb. 49a. Supra 63b and infra 108b. Now, the commencing clause is in glaring contradiction to the view of Rab. The case of confession, however, dealt with in the concluding clause would present no difficulty as Rab's ruling could never apply in that case, as it would have been against Lev. V, 22-23 interpreted on the analogy to Num. V, 7; so Rashi but v. also Tosaf. a.l. ');">¹⁶</span> — R. Nahman said to him: We are dealing here with a case where the oath was taken outside the Court of Law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being thus a mere private matter it could not bar the judicial reopening of the case, whereas the ruling of Rab applies to an oath taken at the sitting of the Court of Law. ');">¹⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 211:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.